Double-Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Process
Double-blind peer review is a method widely used to ensure the highest standards in scientific publishing. This process is fundamental to the objective evaluation of scholarly work and is preferred by many academic journals. Reviewer evaluations are critical to the publication quality of the Turkish Journal of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (TUAV). All submissions to TUAV are evaluated through the following steps using a double-blind review process:

Type of Peer Review
TUAV employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the process.

Initial Editorial Review
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editors. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope and aims of the journal, are linguistically weak in either Turkish or English, contain critical scientific flaws, lack originality, or do not meet the journal’s publication policies are rejected at this stage. Authors of rejected manuscripts are notified within one month of submission. Manuscripts that pass this stage are sent to a subject-specific editorial board member for preliminary review.

Preliminary Review
The assigned editorial board member evaluates the introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, conclusion, and discussion sections of the manuscript based on the journal’s policy, scope, and originality. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable are returned within one month. Suitable manuscripts proceed to the peer review stage.

Peer Review Process
Manuscripts are assigned to at least two reviewers selected from the TUAV reviewer pool based on their expertise. Subject editors may also propose new reviewers suitable for the manuscript. The editor reviews the suggested reviewers and sends the manuscript accordingly. Reviewers must guarantee confidentiality and not share any part of the manuscript or review process.

Reviewer Reports
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

1. Originality
2. Research method
3. Compliance with ethical standards
4. Presentation of findings and results
5. Use of relevant literature
   

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Introduction & Literature Review: Assessment of the research problem, objectives, relevance, coverage of the literature, and originality.
2. Methodology: Suitability of the methods used, participant selection, validity and reliability, data collection and analysis.
3. Findings: Presentation and clarity of findings, consistency with objectives, appropriateness of visuals (tables, graphs), and conceptual use of statistical tests.
4. Discussion: Interpretation of findings, relation to research questions and hypotheses, generalizability, and applicability.
5. Conclusion & Recommendations: Contributions to literature, suggestions for future research, and practical implications.
6. Style & Language: Relevance of the title, proper use of language, and formatting of references according to journal guidelines.
7. Overall Evaluation: General assessment of the manuscript’s originality and contribution to the field.

Note: Reviewers are not expected to correct typographical formatting in the manuscript.

Review Timeline
Reviewers are given 6 weeks to complete the review. Authors are required to submit revisions within 1 month following the “revision guidelines” provided. Reviewers may request multiple rounds of revisions, if necessary.

Editorial Decision
Editors review the peer reports and make a final decision within 2 weeks.

Editorial Board Decision
Based on reviewer feedback, the editors prepare an editorial summary and send it to the authors within 1 week. If the feedback is negative, the manuscript is rejected without a plagiarism check. For positively evaluated manuscripts, the final decision is made after plagiarism screening.

How Long Does the Review Process Take?
The peer review process in TUAV is expected to be completed within approximately 6 months. However, any delays caused by the authors (e.g., time taken for revisions) are not included in this 6-month period.

Appeals
Authors have the right to appeal the editorial decision. Appeals must be submitted to tarihincelemeleri@gmail.com with scientific justifications and references. Editors will respond within 1 month. If the appeal is accepted, the editorial board will assign new reviewers and restart the evaluation process.

After Acceptance
Once accepted, manuscripts go through the following stages:

• Plagiarism check
• Reference formatting
• Citation verification
• Layout and typesetting
• DOI assignment
  

TUAV charges no fees for submission, processing, or access.
However, certain responsibilities after acceptance rest with the authors.

DOI Assignment
The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is a unique code for identifying and accessing digital publications. Once the plagiarism check, reference formatting, and final layout are completed, the editorial board assigns a DOI to each accepted manuscript.

Language Editing
Submissions to TUAV must be written in clear, grammatically correct, and fluent Turkish or English, consistent with scientific writing norms. Manuscripts should be free from foreign terms and unnecessary complexity.
Authors are encouraged to have their manuscripts professionally edited before submission to ensure quality.

The editorial board may request language editing services during or after the review process as needed.